High Court Dismisses Application to Set Aside Ex-Parte Judgment: ‘No Explanation for Delay Provided’ Emphasizes Justice Sarin”
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the dismissal of Sakattar Singh’s application to set aside an ex-parte judgment and decree, citing a lack of justifiable explanation for the delay in filing the application. The judgment, delivered by Justice Alka Sarin, emphasizes the importance of procedural discipline and the credibility of the service address used in legal proceedings.
The case involves a suit filed by Manjit Singh for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated November 11, 1999, against Sakattar Singh and another defendant. The trial court had passed an ex-parte judgment and decree in January 2007. Sakattar Singh filed an application to set aside this ex-parte judgment, claiming he was not served at his correct address. This application was dismissed by both the trial court and the appellate court, prompting Sakattar Singh to file a revision petition in the High Court.
Credibility of Service Address: Justice Sarin meticulously analyzed the petitioner’s claim regarding the incorrect service address, finding it baseless. “Summons were served at the same address as mentioned in the execution petition, which the petitioner acknowledged,” the court observed. The consistency in the address used undermined the petitioner’s argument.
Delay in Filing Application: A crucial aspect of the court’s decision was the unexplained delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. “Even if the date of knowledge is considered to be 14.05.2012, there is no explanation given for the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which was filed after a delay of more than one year,” Justice Sarin noted. The absence of any application or prayer for condonation of delay further weakened the petitioner’s case.
The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and providing credible explanations for any delays. “There is absolutely no explanation forthcoming for the said delay,” the court reiterated. The lack of an application for condonation of delay or even a prayer for it was highlighted as a significant lapse in the petitioner’s case.
Justice Sarin remarked, “The defendant’s claim of incorrect address is unsubstantiated, especially given his acknowledgment of the address during the execution proceedings. The delay in filing the application remains unexplained, indicating a lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner.”
The High Court’s dismissal of the revision petition reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to procedural discipline and timely action. By affirming the lower courts’ findings, the judgment sends a strong message about the necessity of credible and timely explanations for procedural delays. This decision is expected to influence future cases, underscoring the importance of adhering to procedural rules and timelines.
Date of Decision: 7th June 2024
Sakattar Singh vs. Manjit Singh and Others
